I think that the fact that a man as powerful as Bush doesn't see evolution as a viable explanation for our existence is frightening. The separation of Church and State is being blurred, and many of the freedoms we have taken for granted are now at risk.

I think the theories of creation and evolution can co-exist quite easily. The mathematical odds for evolution being an entirely random process don't even bear thinking about, so that's where creation comes into it. Sure, we evolved, but it was through divine design, not luck. That is unless you think the world was created in seven 24 hour days...

The unfortunate part of the theory of evolution is that is cannot explain a beginning point. The mathematical odds make it as much a matter of faith as creationism.

Except that creationism blows a hole through its arguments in constructing fantastical claims about the world being only 10,000 years old and co-existing with dinosaurs. The difference between evolution and creationism is that the former is molded on theory and evidence, while the latter molds its "theory" around its pre-existing belief system. In other words, there is room for change within evolution, while creationists leave no possibility for them being wrong. That's not science; that's religion.

Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...

Posts: 19,269

Local Time: 09:22 PM

Re: Re: Re: Creation/Evolution.

Exactly ^^^^.

Quote:

Originally posted by melon I actually agree with you. Religion has no place in schools as a "religion" class, but, rather, I think that philosophy has its place in schools, which is painfully omitted these days. Teaching how religion has influenced philosophy--just as modernism and postmodernism has--would certainly shed some light as to why our culture is the way it is today.

.

As for me, I do believe in evolution-the idea that apes and humans share a common ancestor just makes more sense to me.

I don't really know if I believe God played a part in making the universe.

I believe in creation. I once left open teh possibility that evolution of man and creation could go hand-in-hand, but now I don't think they are compatible at all? The reason? The Bible says that God formed man from the dust of the earth, in His own image. The Bible also later says that Christ is the image of the living God.

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest I believe in creation. I once left open teh possibility that evolution of man and creation could go hand-in-hand, but now I don't think they are compatible at all? The reason? The Bible says that God formed man from the dust of the earth, in His own image. The Bible also later says that Christ is the image of the living God.

yeah, but the Bible also says a lot of other things that are metaphorical. So I would think that it would be read as inspired literature rather than a scientific textbook. Treating it as the latter actually reads back 21st century expectations into something that was not intended to support that level of detail.

__________________"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

Except that creationism blows a hole through its arguments in constructing fantastical claims about the world being only 10,000 years old and co-existing with dinosaurs.

I will agree that there is a minority of hyper-literal creationists who see the genealogies as strict generation to generation, ignoring the Hebrew terms used can skip many generations in a family line.

yeah, but the Bible also says a lot of other things that are metaphorical. So I would think that it would be read as inspired literature rather than a scientific textbook. Treating it as the latter actually reads back 21st century expectations into something that was not intended to support that level of detail.

So, are you telling me that:

1)God didn't create man in His own image, as the Bible says?

or

2)God did create man in His own image, but that God the Father's (and Jesus') image is that of an amoeba or whatever it is that supposedly is the very first stage of the very first man?

2)God did create man in His own image, but that God the Father's (and Jesus') image is that of an amoeba or whatever it is that supposedly is the very first stage of the very first man?

1. God created man in God's image. But who's to say what the process was? A sculptor starts off with a mound of clay.

2. I think people seem to take this "image" thing way too literal. I don't believe God to have have two legs, two arms, two eyes just like a human. God took human form, but even then was born out of a human womb.

2)God did create man in His own image, but that God the Father's (and Jesus') image is that of an amoeba or whatever it is that supposedly is the very first stage of the very first man?

Given the two options you have listed (which I think are completely a false either/or) I would ask you...are we in the image of God when we are a single cell egg? A fetus?

What I am saying is that it has been a question throughout the ages of Christian theology as to what exactly the "imago dei" means. You should know that as well as I. If you would like to argue that "image" is merely a physical representation, then I would be curious to know how gender would figure into that. Personally, I believe that being created in the image of God is a cornerstone of my faith, but I think it has more to do with all that encompasses being human, including the "soul".

__________________

__________________"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono